Sammy Giammalva beat both Budge and Riggs at Tuscaloosa in 1959 to win his first pro tournament. Was Giammalva one of the greats?
Sedgman's last great showing was in 1959.
Hoad did not play the tour in 1960, 1961, 1962.
End argument.

Dan, you annoy me more and more with every new post of yours. Your new post is an impertinence. I'm proud enough about my tennis knowledge that I can't accept such a behaviour.

FIRST you ignore all my arguments of my long last recent posting. At no single point you reply to my argument. At no single point you would concede:" Bobby, we have a different view at the things but you are right in this point or that. You have me convinced that a point of mine was wrong"

I have reflected about your personality and still wonder who you are. Are you mean? I thought to myself:"No, he is not mean, he does not know better"

Then I thought you are insane and I insulted you a few times for that. But you do have the intelligence for a tactics to give me always new strange "arguments" in order to not being forced to give answer to my arguments. The same happened in your discussion with krosero when you did not reflect his reasonable views and when you invented the strangest arguments to "prevail" over him in the discussion...

Now I believe you are a mixture of mean and insane. You seem to have a blockade in your mind to write reasonably. I understand that my requests to you about discussing as reasonable people do are fruitless.

SECOND your new arguments are very irrational.

What has Giammalva to do with our discussion???

His wins against Budge and Riggs in 1959 (!) were hardly masterpieces.

Sedgman was very strong in 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965. You can't battle out two matchpoints against a peak Laver at Wembley in 1965 if you are a weak player. He twice beat Laver in those years too.

Hoad did play a part of the 1961 tour (not too successful, by the way).

There was no big tour in 1962 at all as you know. But Hoad did play much in Europe that year.

End of our discussion? Maybe.

On one hand I find your attitude obnoxious and I would like to stop answering you. On the other hand I confess I like to disprove silly statements and views.

My hope is that also other posters disprove your theses as Limpinhitter and urban and pc1 have already done.

In the 1958 and 1959 tours, neither Cleveland nor Wembley was included in the Ampol world championship tour, which decided the bonus money pool. These tournaments were not managed by the Kramer organization, and were not included in the championship tour. The top pros concentrated on the designated tournaments. The 1959 Wembley event was won by Anderson, well down the money list.
After 1959, the Ampol series, and Forest Hills, were discontinued due to Hoad's semi-retirement, and Wembley became more important BY DEFAULT.
Hoad was carrying extra pounds after the 1959-60 season, and tended to tire in long matches. What does this sound like?
It sounds like Rosewall merely maintained his level of play after 1960, while his principal opponents declined.
End of argument, my friend.

Wembley became more important by DEFAULT? That's miles even below you own level...

Dan, you annoy me more and more with every new post of yours. Your new post is an impertinence. I'm proud enough about my tennis knowledge that I can't accept such a behaviour.

FIRST you ignore all my arguments of my long last recent posting. At no single point you reply to my argument. At no single point you would concede:" Bobby, we have a different view at the things but you are right in this point or that. You have me convinced that a point of mine was wrong"

I have reflected about your personality and still wonder who you are. Are you mean? I thought to myself:"No, he is not mean, he does not know better"

Then I thought you are insane and I insulted you a few times for that. But you do have the intelligence for a tactics to give me always new strange "arguments" in order to not being forced to give answer to my arguments. The same happened in your discussion with krosero when you did not reflect his reasonable views and when you invented the strangest arguments to "prevail" over him in the discussion...

Now I believe you are a mixture of mean and insane. You seem to have a blockade in your mind to write reasonably. I understand that my requests to you about discussing like reasonable people do are fruitless.

SECOND your new arguments are very irrational.

What has Giammalva to do with our discussion???

His wins against Budge and Riggs in 1959 (!) were hardly masterpieces.

Sedgman was very strong in 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965. You can't battle out two matchpoints against a peak Laver at Wembley in 1965 if you are a weak player. He twice beat Laver in those years too.

Hoad did play a part of the 1961 tour (not too successful, by the way).

There was no big tour in 1962 at all as you know. But Hoad di play much in Europe that year.

End of our discussion? Maybe.

On one hand I find your attitude obnoxious and I would like to stop answering you. At the other hand I confess I like to disprove silly statements and views.

My hope is that other posters disprove your theses as Limpinhitter and urban and pc1 have already done.

Learn a certain culture of discussing!

Sedgman won his last event in 1959. Is this an inconvenient fact? Apparently.
Hoad took a long layoff after injuring himself in the Tokyo 1960 final against Rosewall, and was out of shape for the 1961 tour, which he withdrew from shortly with a broken foot.
He won the Italian clay tour in 1962, but ran out of gas in the Wembley final. What does this mean? His conditioning was suspect.
Why no tour in 1962? Was Rosewall that much lacking in box-office power? Or were his opponents too far deteriorated?

Sedgman won his last event in 1959. Is this an inconvenient fact? Apparently.
Hoad took a long layoff after injuring himself in the Tokyo 1960 final against Rosewall, and was out of shape for the 1961 tour, which he withdrew from shortly with a broken foot.
He won the Italian clay tour in 1962, but ran out of gas in the Wembley final. What does this mean? His conditioning was suspect.
Why no tour in 1962? Was Rosewall that much lacking in box-office power? Or were his opponents too far deteriorated?

No answer is also an answer, a telling answer.

Sedgman winning in 1959 does not disprove my remark about Sedgman's matchpoints in 1965.

It's not only a discussion about tennis but also my trial to show HOW serious discussions should be made.

I miss any contradiction of yours to Lobb's strange statements.

The more posters contradict Dan the greater is the probability that he gives up his trolling...

I did not have such tennis discussions with you because you mostly have reasonable views. I only contradict you regarding Vines, Nüsslein & Co and Segura...

Lobb is so stubborn as you
Hoad is very fascinating and I find his team with great Rosewall even more fascinating
But Laver,Rosewall and Pancho have him best or very close to best ever and that is enough for me
He , Kodes and a few more are just as underrated here as Vines but specially Nusslein and Segura are overrated IMO
Vinws is a true champion while Segura and Nusslein are the best ever journeymen but not champions

__________________
Whenever I walk in a London street, I am always so careful where I put my feet

Lobb is so stubborn as you
Hoad is very fascinating and I find his team with great Rosewall even more fascinating
But Laver,Rosewall and Pancho have him best or very close to best ever and that is enough for me
He , Kodes and a few more are just as underrated here as Vines but specially Nusslein and Segura are overrated IMO
Vinws is a true champion while Segura and Nusslein are the best ever journeymen but not champions

Thanks that you call me stubborn and put me into the same pot as Dan.

I would have thought that intelligent people can distinguish into serious and trolling argumentation...

It's not only a discussion about tennis but also my trial to show HOW serious discussions should be made.

I miss any contradiction of yours to Lobb's strange statements.

The more posters contradict Dan the greater is the probability that he gives up his trolling...

I did not have such tennis discussions with you because you mostly have reasonable views. I only contradict you regarding Vines, Nüsslein & Co and Segura...

i would contribute more to the discussion if i knew what it was. i don´t most of the time. i can see Dans tactics to change the subject and to bring up obscure points. one usually does that when one runs out of arguments.
was Lew Hoad at his peak the best ever? maybe, but i haven´t seen the man play so it´s hard to have a definite opinion.
was Lew Hoad the greatest of all time in terms of career achievements?
easy to answer. no, and not even close.
i would love to be able to travel back in time to a Hoad match and quietly sit in the stands and enjoy

i would contribute more to the discussion if i knew what it was. i don´t most of the time. i can see Dans tactics to change the subject and to bring up obscure points. one usually does that when one runs out of arguments.
was Lew Hoad at his peak the best ever? maybe, but i haven´t seen the man play so it´s hard to have a definite opinion.
was Lew Hoad the greatest of all time in terms of career achievements?
easy to answer. no, and not even close.
i would love to be able to travel back in time to a Hoad match and quietly sit in the stands and enjoy

treblings, thanks a lot for your post. Believe me: I was sure that you are one of the understanding posters here and that you can easily differ between serious thought arguments (even conceding that the serious poster can make mistakes here and there: I do know that I'm not perfect at all) and the attitude to give unserious arguments instead of serious ones.

I stress that I'm aware that Dan knows much about tennis history. For example I had not known before him about the 1957 claycourt tournaments at De Hague and Cairo.

I think the problem with Dan is that he mixes right and wrong facts and arguments in order to confuse his discussion's partner, equal if it is krosero or BobbyOne...

Dan and Bobby surely are two great experts but looking at their rivalry is becoming to look as a Dibbs vs Solomon cc match with both at their prime

And they're becoming (have become) very boring. It's so unnecessary. We're all here to discuss a great player, not argue about the whys and wherefores of his career. I saw him play many times (did any of you?) and I can tell you he was an incredible player when on, and lackadaisical at best when he was off. The players who played with and against him are surely the best judges of how good he was. His inconsistency is the reason his career stats aren't better and everyone realises that.

__________________
See my racquet collection at www.80s-tennis.com/pages/virginia-crawford.html and my addition to the Borg collection of the now rare Donnay Diamant.

i would love to be able to travel back in time to a Hoad match and quietly sit in the stands and enjoy

I would pick either the 1957 Wimbledon final against Cooper (6-2, 6-1, 6-2), or the 1959 Tournament of Champions final against Gonzales (6-1, 5-7, 6-2, 6-1). They were Hoad's best performances on the biggest stages.

I would pick either the 1957 Wimbledon final against Cooper (6-2, 6-1, 6-2), or the 1959 Tournament of Champions final against Gonzales (6-1, 5-7, 6-2, 6-1). They were Hoad's best performances on the biggest stages.

of these two matches i would probably choose the one against Gonzales.
another one of those players i would have loved to have seen

And they're becoming (have become) very boring. It's so unnecessary. We're all here to discuss a great player, not argue about the whys and wherefores of his career. I saw him play many times (did any of you?) and I can tell you he was an incredible player when on, and lackadaisical at best when he was off. The players who played with and against him are surely the best judges of how good he was. His inconsistency is the reason his career stats aren't better and everyone realises that.

Virginia,

Can you possible discuss in detail your opinions about Hoad, his strokes, etc?

Yes, as it happens, I do. I also own a racquet that used to belong to Art Larsen (US Open Champion 1950), and a Seamco Rosewall racquet, autographed by him (in my presence while I was talking to him at the Sydney Olympic Centre).

P.S. Rosewall was amazed and delighted that my racquet was in such beautiful condition (virtually mint). I think it brought back a few memories.

__________________
See my racquet collection at www.80s-tennis.com/pages/virginia-crawford.html and my addition to the Borg collection of the now rare Donnay Diamant.

Can you possible discuss in detail your opinions about Hoad, his strokes, etc?

I wish... It was a long time ago and I was just a teenager then, but in comparison to other great players of the time (Seixas, Patty, Drobny, etc etc) it was easy to see he was a cut above the rest. The power was just amazing and he seemed able to execute any stroke with ease. On the other hand, when he was off his game, it was hard to believe it was the same player.

__________________
See my racquet collection at www.80s-tennis.com/pages/virginia-crawford.html and my addition to the Borg collection of the now rare Donnay Diamant.